BlueOak

1, Because all far-right governments or leadership require an opponent to exist. If these regions settle down, those in them will lose power or influence. So either Iran directly planned this or created the conditions for it to exist (alongside all other involved actors). If it is the latter, they had a massive failure on their end. Having missed this huge movement of manpower, logistics, and planning without their knowledge. So much so, it begs the question: why are they still supporting them now? Answer: Because it aligns with their interests to do so. 2, Having a large number of teenagers in their ranks. I was using their age, their more disorganized militia nature, and the fact that any large action in a region as heavily watched as this one, makes the case of how unlikely it is would have escaped everyone's notice. I suppose I could choose to believe everyone is incompetent instead.

If Hamas doesn't do what Iran wants, Iran will stop arming, training, and funding it. It won't support an organization that doesn't align with its interests. Iran's whole approach is to use these proxies to maintain its influence over the region, thus distancing itself while simultaneously achieving its goals. Thank you for the article on Hamas; it was informative. Your article highlights 12-15 as children but shies away from directly saying it: Generally, Hamas considers 16 to be an adult, so this still aligns with teenagers being the bulk of the force, as the average was 18 or lower for males in the region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_child_suicide_bombers_by_Palestinian_militant_groups However, it does indicate those younger than 16 would be in non-combat roles for the most part. The US's primary goal is money, maintaining trade connections, and the dollar underwriting world currency. The USA foreign policy is essentially Stage Orange personified. They do this by creating countries that are friendly to this policy, essentially democracies, when possible because they share similar values and encourage stable economic development in their trading partners. Some countries can't sustain a democracy, but they can still block their rival's influence by picking the right leader (and still buying their guns or products/contracts).

1, Yes, the leaders are adults, as is the case with most armed forces of any nature. There is little proof of anything in a militia or irregular force; however, the data indicates you are wrong. Again, 40% of Gazans were 14 years old, and the median age was 18 before the war; this will be skewed lower for males in a conflict zone. Therefore, any fighting militia force taken from the population will be of that age on average. I am happy to read or see if you have data that says otherwise. If not, I will draw logical deductions over your feelings or opinions, with no offense intended. If you want to dismiss this as data speculative, fine, but they are still a militia force, and any movement or organization of a large force, especially a disorganized one, will involve much communication and planning. That's just how it works; people don't all mass one day, press a button, and everyone arrives armed and ready on the spot on the same day at the same time, with the same plan. 2, Iran has different levels of influence over its proxies; they arm and use Hamas to exert their influence over the region: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_support_for_Hamas https://theconversation.com/how-much-influence-does-iran-have-over-its-proxy-axis-of-resistance-hezbollah-hamas-and-the-houthis-221269 I am genuinely surprised you are making this particular argument, but if you are, please, by all means, link some sources that are beyond your personal opinion; perhaps you have information I don't, and if so, I'd be glad to hear it. Who arms and trains Hamas: https://www.npr.org/2023/10/26/1208866508/irans-foreign-minister-on-the-hamas-attack-and-the-war-that-has-followed https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-weapons-rockets.html https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-guns-weapons-missiles-smuggling-adae9dae4c48059d2a3c8e5d565daa30 These sorts of articles and sources can be pulled forever. 3. Yes, but democracies prefer democracies. When they can create them, they do, but they'll settle for dictators aligned with them if not just to deny an opponent. Generally, people in this world try to make it like they are rather than accept it for what it is.

@Karmadhi All countries make a big deal about meddling in their elections or government when it doesn't align with their current aims. This is very true when someone tries to stop a democracy from forming, for example, or alter a nation towards a conflict they aren't interested in fighting. Other examples might be corruption or the theft of secrets and technology. Yes, the famine left lingering anger, and I would agree with that. On Russian hatred pre-2014: Please provide clips of this or articles from before 2014. If you are finding it difficult to search for them, give me some search terms for incidents, and I'll do a bit for you. I am good at locating data. I am assuming at this point you've listened to a rumor, not an actual demonstrable fact. This is okay; I am only going by Ukrainian reporters who talk about the time before the war being relatively peaceful, that there wasn't a language barrier because almost everyone spoke Russian from ex-Soviet families or schools. 'They wanted to be part of Russia.' Now, you are referring to the sham elections carried out at gunpoint in the middle of a war, after torture, deportations, and death? Prior to this turmoil, everything was peaceful. Let's be very blunt: This is the 8th war to rebuild Russian control and influence over former USSR territories, and it is an effort of democratic forces to create a democracy in Ukraine. That's it, that's the opposing goals. The people don't matter; asking the average person for their honest opinions on life would boil down to living safely, comfortably, and in peace. That would be a universal constant the world over. It's the leaders that have ambitions, things to lose or gain, and driving forces beyond that to shape these countries for better or worse. Yes, the US, China, Iran, BRICS, and NATO are indirectly involved. This is still a European war. It's being conducted in Europe in a move for Russia to strengthen its position in Europe and for the European powers to resist their expansion. It's a tale as old as the continent is, and it's been done many times before. It was a clever trick for awhile to make it about the US vs Russia in people's minds, but this is European land. The US is the biggest guarantor of Europe because it is their leading trading partner. As a result, Europe provides a large amount of wealth to the US, and the US is a large arms dealer. Whatever major conflict comes about, the US and Russia will be giving arms to someone involved. You sum up the problem with neutrality next: nobody remains neutral on a border between two major powers. Ukraine will either be under Russian influence or the EU's.

@Raze Are both sides (all countries on this planet) responsible for what happens to one. Yes, finally, it gets reflected to me; that’s exactly how it works on Earth. Nothing is in a vacuum; every action of every country shifts things for the others and directly creates what comes next, especially in its immediate neighbors or geopolitical opponents created by duality. If people realized this, we’d have a better functioning global system without fear of ‘globalism', which exists anyway; people recoil from the idea they are not directly responsible for every decision they take. In truth, they are always part of a pattern; you and I are right now. On Israel: The more radical elements of the government require war and fear to sustain themselves. I’ve covered that all far-right governments are functionally similar in that respect. I don’t believe anyone thought the scale would be this because the fallout from fostering that violence was devastating for both. On Hamas: Hamas is a gang of teenagers; the average age in Gaza is 18: 1) https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25993-the-reasons-why-gazas-population-is-so-young/ 2) https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2023-11-14/population-religion-and-poverty-the-demographics-of-israel-and-gaza - 40% of it was 14. You can bet that it will be younger for men in a conflict zone, and younger since the war. Thousands of teenagers were organized into a strike. You are telling me you think it likely that the people behind the militia didn’t know about it? Either they failed monumentally in their leadership role to report on, influence, or control their proxy forces, or you're mistaken. Like most involved countries, Iran will have agents in that region right now. 1. Intelligent agents know about an army about to strike, let alone a militia. See America and England’s warning to Ukraine. 2, Have you met teenagers or tried to organize them to do anything at any time? It’s a nightmare; they can’t sit still, they want to tell everyone what they are doing, there’d be messages all over the place, and it’d be near impossible not to know. This is not 5 friends getting together to cause violence or mischief, it's a large force being pulled in at once. You are intelligent; if you deduce from the above the apparent implication of that statement on other countries and their intelligence services, yes, you’ll be right. Not to say any of them could stop it when it was in motion, but to claim everyone was in the dark over a known flashpoint is so improbable to me that I cannot believe it. I also would expect nobody to know the scale of it properly or what would happen next. This is a conjecture, however, so you can dismiss it at will. Instead, we can say Iran and Israel (and every other far-right government around the world) foster the conditions for conflict to occur so they can stay in power and leave it at that. You telling me America’s far-right government ripped up the nuclear deal only makes the previous statement more likely, not less. I’m not playing favorites here; the entire world shifted right and continues to do so; this is the natural implication of it: conflict. As for you saying countries react differently, yes. They react according to their ability and goals. America’s was a profit and a democratic world order. Iran’s is an Islamic Caliphate. Russia’s is the restoration of the USSR. Europe’s is maintaining its financial hegemony. China is One China, securing as much of the surrounding territory as possible and trade connections overseas. BRICS goals, as a whole, are replacing the Western world order. NATO’s goal is to secure democratic prosperity and security. Africa has goals, Asia has goals, South America has goals. All of these goals are not above threatening other countries to achieve them, but recognizing them as existing is crucial to achieving if not peace, then at least lasting stability,

By the attack on Israel's civilian population by Iran's proxy militia. Any far-right regime requires war or an opponent to sustain itself. The region was becoming quieter and more settled from an international audience perspective. Iran requires violence to sustain its militia groups; the more fanatical ideals of an Islamic caliphate over the region need an opponent. It is the same with the government of Israel or any region on the planet, without an opponent, they would not be as radical or be able to push their influence outward. People have explained to me that this is more reflective of the militias themselves than Iran as a whole, and I concede that, but again, there is no way thousands of teenage militia were organized into a collective force without significant leadership and coordination. Even if we assume the unlikely scenario that Iran had no knowledge or involvement in this, which I find hard to believe given the size and unprofessionalism of the fighting force, they are still partially responsible for: 1) creating the conditions for this to happen, 2) supplying the necessary tools, and 3) failing to control their own proxy force in a monumental lapse of leadership. There has been a push for Islamic imperialism for a time; the same is true of Chinese Socialism. I can describe this now as connecting the dots; this requires an opponent, and often a war to sustain itself. You can see this in how American imperialism worked; the opponent allowed the military-industrial complex to flourish and maintain power in their government. This is true of Russia, and it may be true of the far-right governments in Europe that are required to meet Russia's threat; you can see them gaining more power by the month also.

Exactly. I often lack a Middle Eastern-voiced perspective. The world would be a better place if more were heard globally and given similar platforms.

I am open to listening to anyone. Can you give me, from your perspective, three unbiased Islamic speakers. - I realise nobody is unbiased, but it indicates they are at least trying to factor in more than their own perspective into their words.

The polls, early this year. Thank you. I'll make a note of the dates to title the data. The videos are the most relevant stories of the moment. The party breakdowns were taken directly from their channel and, where possible, from its promotional message. I am going to do another set of polls as they come out. For example, there is a swing for reform and a further fall for conservatives in a yougov poll that dropped two days ago. So one poll has them about even, but you need several to get confirmation of anything. June You Gov Poll: https://yougov.co.uk/elections/uk/2024 If anyone has any polls to share, or any news videos to share, by all means, that'd help flesh the thread out. Also updated with a leaders ITV Debate: Nigel Farage replaces Richard Tice as Reform Leader

To be frank I put a lot of effort into that. It's not the same thread; its purpose is video coverage, statistics data, and polling information. How many threads are you going to see on the US election or various wars? Dozens, all from different angles and perspectives.

Partially, the universe is you in a verse. So if reality is structured in a universe, you would need to maintain you in that verse. Certainly, for duality to reflect anything, you need to be present in it. Reality can be structured in other ways. One clear one most of us here could imagine, or, if we are fortunate, describe, would be a single unity. Another might be a trinity, rather than a duality. If I can conceive that in this limited mind, then you can be absolutely sure our bigger self can create it in a nanosecond. Time and physics work here in perfect harmony, but they are so in-depth that we could have created them differently elsewhere and probably have done.

Good update as always. @Twentyfirst It's about many things, mostly summed up by two spheres of influence pushing against each other, like most wars between nations that are not due to a civil breakdown.

There was Russian suppression and violent intimidation, which led to the uprising, but you'll have to give me specific instances to investigate before that. As far as I have been told there wasn't hatred, but the region generally dislikes Russian's meddling in their elections and the constant posturing or projection of fear Russia tries - which is understandable, nobody would like it. Generally, democracies want stable democracies. Yes, they work towards that goal. You don't see people annoyed? Georgia comes to mind, as does Chechnya and, to a certain extent, Belarus. It's a matter of how much meddling goes on and how open it is. Are you saying people like others messing around in their elections, or are okay with it? See America's reaction to Israel and Saudi Arabia openly doing so. They didn't let them become independent because those regions were part of Ukraine. They were fine until Russia's militia started working in them, mostly the militias were manned by Russians in the beginning. All done because Ukraine's proxy government was overthrown as an excuse for war. The US has invaded to topple dictators in several countries within the Russian sphere of influence. That's what great powers do, and it's what Russia is trying to do here. Making a case for the equivalency doesn't change anything or make it better. Why are you so focused on making a moral case against the US again? This is a European war. I understand to keep their moral convictions, people must see someone else doing something wrong and say okay, they are bad, so I'll use that to make a point. It falls apart, though, because it's not US troops there, not US land, and the US is more reluctant than the people closer to it. - I don't make a case for morality as the center of a point, or rarely any part of what I say unless I'm being lazy. It's not very helpful because it's a cyclical my values vs your values argument. Even in the absolute best-case scenario, if I give you that, EU policy is going to change if they have to double their military size for a large border with Russia. People don't pay all that money into their military and not use it; Sadhguru makes that point quite well; the way to peace is to defang the warmakers. That won't happen in a large border with a belligerent neighbor. Someone painting a token government in Ukraine and letting Putin call the shots like Belarus isn't enough - Belarus's posturing and weak government is somewhat likely to get a coup against it for the proliferation of nuclear weapons and threats to use them; that's the sort of threat that won't be ignored.

Reserved for Results

Ongoing Polls and Data June Polls YouGov Poll: June 4, 2024 Labour: 40% | Conservative: 19% | Reform UK: 17% | LibDem: 10% | Green 7% | SNP: 3% | Plaid Cymru: 1% | Others: 2% https://yougov.co.uk/elections/uk/2024?constituency=E14001452 Reform is still predicted to get a low number of seats with the voter spread.

Important Election Updates: Please feel free to suggest some! Depending on breaking news or headlines and your ideas, these will likely get swapped around. ITV Leaders Debate Sunak vs Starmer Nigel Farage replaces Richard Tice for Reform UK Leadership £2,000 Pound Tax Claim First Minister of Wales No-Confidence Vote Conservative - Reform Possible Shift

I've started a broad-spectrum data/video thread here and mentioned this as the debate/discussion thread.

Early Polling Data 2024: Image 1 and 2 Source Wikipedia Before / After Source: Telegraph Source: Savanta / Yahoo News Other Excellent Sources: https://yougov.co.uk/elections/uk/2024 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68079726 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2024_United_Kingdom_general_election Why a separate thread? I’d like to keep this for data, manifestos, videos, etc. I know I can’t control debate, but there is a whole other thread for that here: https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/101743-uk-general-election-2024/

1, Ukraine have had plenty of small arms now since the aid came. This is why they are back on offense. They WERE starved yes, because aid was held up and it cost them territory and lives. 2, The average age is higher because the minimum conscription age is 25. (It was 27) and Ukraine now has 500,000 more men recruited for the summer. It's hyperbole again, how they describe it, but that's BP in a nutshell. 3. Russia is being hit across the border because it wasn't working at all to let Russia shell Ukrainian cities and forces with impunity. The war would never cease unless they were denied the ability to create it. 4, Yes BRICS is openly supporting Russia. 5, The momentum is not with Russia, it is more of a bitter stalemate, since aid came into Ukraine they have it actually (but only slightly) 6, France already has instructors there. Their death will not trigger Article 5 on foreign territory, this is again hyperbole from BP. 7, Russia has threatened to nuke the UK every month. Things like the Queen's funeral, for example. It's part of the reason we've hardened toward them; if you threaten Western Europe enough, you get this situation. European powers remilitarizing, its been a long time since we had to, this will bring more war on the continent. 8. Given that 30% of Americans support Russia, and probably 40% in total don't back the aid going, it's not America or Biden doing this or that, it's Biden supporting his allies. This maintains their main trading partner and a lot of the wealth America enjoys. If this instead gets past Ukraine, which it will one way or another if Ukraine falls, all of Europe goes to hell, and my gut says there is a good chance of WW3. War is horrible. These people live in a safe dream world thousands of miles from the fighting, and can't see the implications of what they are asking for. All they can report on is how bad war is, and say those fighting are bad people. Notice how it's all anti-Ukraine, though, and completely lopsided in its reporting. @Loveeee

Shenanigans: I picked my words carefully on the color because I tend to agree that claiming ownership of color is difficult. The slogan, I think, might get him in trouble. Though, if we are honest, is the average person going to look further into this? If everyone started doing it, nobody would know who was who.

This made me smile for some light comic relief. A political candidate in the UK sent out political messages in his two main competitors' colors. With the slogans Labour for Largan and Reform for Robert. Labour and the reform parties are two of his biggest competitors this year, to the left and right of his party, though they are all primarily right-wing. He is playing on the fact that a lot of the public doesn't read into things much, they would see the red or light blue colors and associate him with them. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-police-derbyshire-reform-conservatives-b2555306.html Technically, the conservatives are claiming it is within the law, but the people I saw this with had a grin on their faces because it's so blatant that it's funny. He's being investigated for possible election fraud, it was the gall of it that made me smile.

The video is an American speaking about European wars. Speaking to the Colonel, well duh of course leaders fight each other when people try to push them out of their place. Historically this is what European countries do when a significant European power tries to shift the balance of power inside Europe. They fight. The US is not driving the response; this video should help show you that because 30% of America is pro-Russia, and more like 40% tries to resist further aid. We Europeans just haven't had to fight in Europe for a while, but we are heading back to that time, with BRICS pushing for it, and America's reluctance. And Putin frankly keeps threatening everyone, committing cyber attacks, assassinations, etc, so he's getting what he's been pushing for; many European countries are openly hostile to him.

The West has allowed Ukraine to hit behind the border regions of Russia, so Russia can't just sit there and shell a city or keep invading repeatedly. TBH, I'd want them to hit every airfield in range, but that's not how this war is being fought; NATO is doing exactly what is required to make a stalemate, and no more than that. Romania is no more in danger than it was when Russia started this. NATO will keep Russia at a stalemate, and allow no more or less than is required to do it. Not to say there is no danger for all of us, but if the war remains in the east of Ukraine, it's a good distance from you. If it reaches the west of Ukraine, then the war, if it continues unchecked, is on your border and in your home. While it is far away, Romania is in little danger of any long-range strikes and is at a good distance from any potential Kaliningrad or Baltic flashpoint. But still, investing in the military right now is something every European country should be doing; they are just reluctant to do so because it cuts into everything else. - That is part of the reason they want Russia to stay where it is. Otherwise, they'll need to double their military's to defend a large border against a belligerent neighbor.

Thank you. I don't know much about Mexico living so far away; I understand the cartels are a problem, and I occasionally see a documentary, but not often. Your question would depend on how much someone identified their politicians with their faith. It is not one I can answer for Mexicans as a whole, even to offer a general overview. In England, for example, the question of which faith someone worships as a politician only carries a little weight. Like America, gender and skin color here carry more significance, but even then, not as much as, for example, ideology or scandal on stage greenish issues. For example, a leading Welsh politician was recently savaged for taking a donation from a firm that violated recycling laws twice: Atlantic Recycling. This will be discussed far more than his faith, skin color, or political ideology. It has been enough for a no-confidence vote; it's the difference between America's more stage orange population (who tolerate a bit more corruption) and England's at least thin veneer of trying to touch green publicly on things like recycling.

Growing up, people tend to role model their futures based on what they see in reality. I don't know Mexico's culture well enough. Is it full of optimism and opportunity?